St John Capistrano - Anti-Semitic & inciting murder ?

[Prince_Hal]

I’ve been here quite a long time now and, being from Bavarian-Jewish and Italian-Jewish background, I grew up with the a lot of ‘history’ from the perspective of Jews living in Catholic Europe.

From time to time, threads emerge with comments that make me seethe but I’ve learned to recognize that one really needs to judge Catholics on ‘where they and their Church are now’ and not from examples from other times or from individual internet comments from members of the Church.

Perhaps that’s what you need to do?

Not in any way wishing to patronize, but I think that Hashem would be proud of you for such a response. If I have learned anything from my study of Judaism, it is of the overwhelming respect that the religion as a whole gives to G-d.

Thank you for your comment.

Hal.

 

[Petergee]

My point was making a distinction, which is often not made when some try to link Luther’s anti-judaism to Hitler’s anti-semitism.

Unlike any Catholic authority, Luther not only preached anti-Judaism but also antisemitism. Luther actually urged his followers to kill Jews, just because they were Jews. The link between Luther and Hitler is broad and strong.

 

[Petergee]

…getting back to the OP and original posts, I wonder if PH has looked at dissident Mormon groups? There are a number of these , including one in my medium-sized city. It has distanced itself from literal Mormonism and is Christian and very oriented towards peace. It is known as a ‘community’ church. There is also the ‘reorganized’ church of LDS. I know a Mennonite who is a very Christian individual–just got back from Africa–and the Presbyterians do a lot of good work around here.

In leaving strict Mormonism for Roman Catholicism, you are choosing between a fire and a very hot frying plan in terms of authority. You are also looking at a church with a lot to answer for, and a number of ongoing scandals which are not going to be resolved for years. The priest pedophile scandal is going to be the new Inquisition for the RCC and its effects will linger for centuries. You sound like an intelligent, well-read, responsible individual with a strong sense of conscience. Is this what you want?

You have many alternatives, in addition to the dissident LDS groups. Protestants also have a few things to answer for in their history, but usually a lot less than the Catholics, and they acknowledge their failings openly and honestly. If you confront any Protestant group with a list of its background and failings, you will get answers very different from those put forth on this forum, which are insulting to any intelligence, especially yours.

Your bigoted ignorance of history would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad. The protestant revolt unleashed two (in some places five) centuries of Christians killing Christians on a scale hundreds of times greater than anything before or since in Christian history. The “score sheet” of killings of Catholics by protestants and vice versa is roughly even. But whereas Catholics from the pope down freely admit that their Catholic forebears unjustly killed protestants, nearly all protestants either flatly deny that it happened or try to weasel out of it by saying “it’s nothing to do with MY denomination, we weren’t invented then”.

 

[JonNC]

Unlike any Catholic authority, Luther not only preached anti-Judaism but also antisemitism. Luther actually urged his followers to kill Jews, just because they were Jews. The link between Luther and Hitler is broad and strong.

If you have evidence that Luther’s late-in-life rant against the Jews was race-related, anymore than Eck’s or others of that era, please link it. In addition, what link there may be is Hitler’s doing, as he was willing to use any tool to gain power.

None of the anti-jewish sentiments from any Christian of that time is defensible. No more defensible is for one side to target members of the other for polemical purpose of tearing down an entire communion. That was the reason for my initial post here. It wasn’t clear to me if that was where the OP was going. Seems it wasn’t his intent.

Jon

 

[1234]

The OP is a well-educated, thoughtful individual who is interested in history. He was connecting the veneration of saints to the vicious actions of a few.

The big difference between the Protestants and the Catholics is that, aside from honoring the apostles, Protestants aren’t required to venerate saints or their founders. They aren’t required to pray to them or recite litanies or believe that they intercede or anything else.

No one argues that Luther was a saint, or Wesley, or Calvin, or any of the Reformers. They were flawed individuals who were for the most part brilliant men and charismatic leaders.

Luther became anti-Semitic when he discovered that his reform of Catholicism didn’t convert Jews to Christianity. Lutherans don’t pray to Luther. They honor him as a brave man who split from the corrupt Catholic Church. ditto Wesley, Calvin, etc.

Because Protestants don’t this requirement, they manage to avoid the embarrassment of having to venerate a list of saints who may not have existed; saints about whom very little is known in some cases; saints who were deeply racist and supported horrific policies; some were masochistic or by today’s standards were mentally disturbed.

I personally think that the process of canonization is a big stumbling block to anyone considering the Catholic church who is interested in history, and I am glad that Protestants never bought into it. They admire people for their strong points, but they don’t canonize them.

 

[Shin]

Considering that the beauty of the lives of the saints is besides the life of Christ the greatest examples of holiness of life upon this earth – and truly Christ in these saints, still with us…

Reducing it to the above statement is I must simply say, blind as a bat.

You lightly try to tar with a wide and inaccurate brush that which is holy.

You should read some of the quotes in the links below, and that life of St. John above. Self sacrifice. Charity. Courage. Fortitude. Chastity. Modesty. Humility. Hope. Temperance. Fervor. The saints shine forth in virtues.

The saints love God and neighbor more than any others upon this earth.

If you compare yourself to them and don’t find yourself wanting – you do not know what you do.

But if you’re a closed book, you’ll never find out what you are missing in the lives of the saints and what has inspired so many for thousands of years.

 

[Prince_Hal]

…

Because Protestants don’t this requirement, they manage to avoid the embarrassment of having to venerate a list of saints who may not have existed; saints about whom very little is known in some cases; saints who were deeply racist and supported horrific policies; some were masochistic or by today’s standards were mentally disturbed.

I personally think that the process of canonization is a big stumbling block to anyone considering the Catholic church who is interested in history, and I am glad that Protestants never bought into it. They admire people for their strong points, but they don’t canonize them.

I would agree with Shin’s reply to 1234’s post of which the above is an extract. But then in a previous post 1234 points it out also, basically that you cannot paint the whole religion by the acts of a few. I also agree that to a Catholic, not even a Saint is perfect. Only Christ (and Mary) were sinless, only Christ was perfect. There does seem to be some Saints who we know very little about and I suppose that we have to rely upon the Church authorities at the time that they got it right, that these were indeed holy men.

Other Saints we know more about. St John Capistrano appears to have done and said many wonderful things. I never knew the man of course, but there does appear to be some historical evidence that he also did some things that today would probably have ended him up in court. So, perhaps the Jewish Encyclopedia is wrong, perhaps it is biased or innocently in error, and the things it says he did, he didn’t.

But if it is correct, then is this man worthy of veneration and to be used as an intercessor ? Perhaps he isn’t and the Catholic church has it wrong and he should not be a Saint. Does this mean that the Catholic church is not perfect - yes, but that is not a problem. In mormonism that would be a problem, though they have some very interesting acrobatics that that turn it around (i.e. listen to the current prophet, he trumps all previous ones if there is a difference and even the Bible).

So perhaps you can have saints who are not really worthy to be saints and still the Catholic Church is Christ’s church on earth. However, it makes it difficult for those people who pay a devotion to those particular saints on a day-in, day-out basis. Basically wasting their time, except for their dedidcation and the effort, which I am sure will be rewarded.

So, perhaps you can have a saint that is not worthy to be one - though they may indeed still be holier than all of us. But it does put individuals into a quandery. Afterall you do not need to believe in a particular saint to be Catholic, unlike say the special place of Mary. But of course it does make things difficult - but then the Church is not perfect and everyone accepts that.

Any thoughts on this ? Or any other evidence that would refute the Jewish view of Saint John Capistrano ?

God bless,

Hal.

 

[chosen_people]

Traditional Catholic anti-Jewish attitudes, prior to Vatican II, may be defined in three separate categories, although their anti-Jewish expression was often overlapping. Reflections of these anti-Jewish attitudes were found not only in various Catholic Church edicts against Jews but also in many cases in the writings and teachings of Catholics who became Saints.

The three categories are:

a) God rewards those who believe in Him and follow Him. The Jews rejected God and committed Deicide. For this they are cursed by God, forced to wander the world like Cain, and God causes them to suffer.

b) Jews and Judaism are a malignant and negative influence on Christians and Christianity.

c) Jews remain Jews through blindness and flaws in their character. They can only find salvation and get to the world to come if they become Christians.

The above three traditional Catholic attitudes formed the basis for much of the Catholic Church interaction with the Jews up until the 20th Century, and were the motivation for the acts of persecutions against the Jews by the Catholic Church. Catholic Church laws ordered Jews to wear special clothing marking them as Jews and ordered them to live in ghettos. Jews were forbidden any and all social interaction with Catholics, be it at school, at work or in any social setting. Jews were routinely murdered after being accused of killing Christian children to use their blood in their rituals, of desecrating the Eucharist, of poisoning wells and causing plague. Jews were routinely expelled from their homes, their property confiscated. Long before the third Reich, Jewish religious books were ordered burned by the Church. Long before the Chinese cultural revolution Jews were seized from their homes, forced converted, forced to attend classes indoctrinating them in Catholicism.

Certain Catholic apologists have explained that not only were these acts against the Jews by the Catholic Church justified it was invariably the Jews own fault. If little Edgardo Mortara was forcibly removed and forcibly converted it was his family’s fault for not being willing to bring their Jewish child up as a non Jew. It was their fault for employing a Catholic maid. If Jews were placed in ghettos it was for their own protection. It only remains to be asked – protection from what and from whom?

These attitudes are not just part of ancient history. If you read Fr. Fahey on “Jewish naturalism” or Fr. Feeney in “The Point”, you will discover that Jews are using their power to undermine Christianity. They are out to destroy Christmas, manipulate the media against the Church, lead the faithful to liberalism, atheism and abortions.

Anti-Zionist attitudes by Traditional Catholics are often based on these perceptions of Jews. If Jews are rejected by God and meant to wander as a curse for killing Jesus, then it should not follow that God would lead them to be gathered triumphantly in Israel. Likewise, Jews cannot be trusted to protect Christian interests in the Holy Land since they are undermining force.

Since Vatican II and the continuing dialog between the Church and Jewish groups, there has been a real change in such attitudes, both from a formal and from an informal point of view. The Church has condemned anti-Semitism, often shown itself to be sensitive to Jewish feelings and has established diplomatic relations with the State of Israel.

 

[MichelleByrne]

Interesting topic. I am trying to learn more about the history of Jewish pogroms, and the unbiased truth about Anti-Semitism. I am trying to find Solzhenitsyn’s book, Two Hundred Years Together in English, but no luck so far. Anybody else have any clues? I will post a new thread. Thanks!

 

[Shin]

"Troubling news followed Capistrano to Neisse. During Holy Week, some Jews of Breslau had bribed a Polish peasant to break into the village church and steal a ciborum full of sacred hosts. As the peasant hurried through an open field on his way to rendezvous with those Jews, a thunderstorm struck. Seized with panic, he through the ciborium away, but not before he removed ten or eleven hosts, which were taken via the wife of a soldier to the Jews in Breslau. . .

According to Graetz’s account, “a Jew by the name of Meyer … who had bought a sacred host from a peasant, stabbed it, desecrated it, and distributed parts of it to Jewish communities in Schweidnitz, Liegnitz, and elsewhere so that they could do likewise. It goes without saying that the wounded Host shed blood. This ridiculous fairy tale … was of course widely believed. A number of Jews from Breslau were immediately thrown in jail.”

In May Capistrano returned to Breslau. On June 14th, the bishop, fearing innocent Jews might be implicated, asked Capistrano to investigate. Graetz’s attitude is indicated by his use of the term “fairy tale.” His sarcasm bespeaks an attempt to cover over sensational revelations that emerged during the trial but are unmentioned in his account. During the trial, a baptized Jewess, the wife of a citizen of Breslau, accused her father of engaging in a similar ritual 16 years earlier. That Jew had bought consecrated hosts from a woman and had then taken them to a cellar in Lowenberg, where he tried to burn them. Three times he threw the hosts into the fire and three times they leaped out again, until an old Jewess who had come to witness the desecration exclaimed that, having witnessed this miracle, she now believed in the God of the Christians. The Jews flew into a rage and murdered her on the spot. They then burned her body and buried it in the same place. The Jews then took the host, placed it on a small table, and cut it into four parts, causing it to bleed so profusely that neither table nor knife could be washed clean, so both had to be thrown into a nearby stream. The same woman also testified that a child had been murdered for ritual purposes in the cellar.

Acting on her testimony, the court sent a delegation to the house where the desecration allegedly took place 16 years earlier. There they dug up what looked like the charred remains of a fire as well as the bones of a woman and a child. Capistrano, we are told, handled these bones during the trial. Graetz holds Capistrano responsible for the outcome of the trial, which resulted, he claims, in the deaths of 41 Jews. Hofer disputes the number, but no one denies that Jews were executed for blasphemy and murder. . . Graetz writers, “Capistrano presided over them on the bench, as the court moved toward the verdict.” He concludes his attack on Capistrano by calling him a “Jew slaughterer and a cannibal.”

Johannes Hofer tells a different story. Capistrano did indeed hold the bones of the boy in his hands during the trial, but the evidence and the way in which it was found convinced everyone that the Jews were guilty. Hofer also claims Capistrano was merely an advisor and did not preside over the trial. Capistrano, according to Hofer,

“had nothing to do with the arrest of the Jews, nor was the supreme direction of the trial in his hands. During the first two weeks after the arrest, he was not in Breslau at all, but was the guest of the Bishop at Neisse… That he acted thus in obedience to the express wish of a prudent and moderate Bishop, who insisted that the trial be ended before the departure of his guests, puts the affair in an entirely different light.”

How could the court have come to another verdict? Not even Capistrano’s most vocal critics doubted the guilt of the Jews who were on trial. “Jewish historians mention Capistrano’s name with horror,” Hofer writes, but:

“On the other hand, Jewish historians go entirely too far when they band all such accusations as mere fables or psychological impossibilities. Unimpeachable evidence shows that cases of robbery and desecration of consecrated Hosts did occur in the Middle Ages, and still occur in our own day. Admitting the Jews as a class were not guilty, what reason can be given for denying individual Jews never gave vent to their hatred of Christ by committing such crimes?”

The evidence. . . indicates that at least some Jews were guilty of murder and sacrilege, both of which were capital crimes. Capistrano’s presence on the tribunal made no difference because “Sacrileges were punished by death. That was the general European practice, which meted out the death penalty for much lesser crimes. Even the banishment of all Jews corresponded in such cases with the general view of the public. Jews were merely tolerated. The state believed itself justified, whenever public welfare required, in banishing Jews and confiscating their property.”

Given the evidence, the Jews would have been found guilty whether Capistrano was there or not. Furthermore, if the Jews were guilty of capital crimes, Capistrano cannot be termed a slaughterer of Jews. Hence, Graetz’s portrayal of the charges as a “ridiculous fairy tale” ignores both the evidence and the law. His intent was to smear Capistrano. The state had the right to punish criminals. If “the Silesian Jews, in fact commited the crimes which they were accused of,” Hofer points out, “Capistran’s position is unassailable. Ritual murder, sacrilegious crimes, would even today be punished. The sentences of 1453 were entirely in harmony with contemporary European ideas of justice.”

 

[Shin]

Some Jewish historians including Graetz, claim that such evidence was prima facie fantastic, the Jews were the victims of a plot “set in motion,” Hofer claims, “to get rid of pressing creditors.” It is easier, howeever, to accept the evidence of blasphemy and murder than to find evidence of a plot:

"The detailed account of the robberies, the precise reports of places and times, the definite description of all persons concerned, even of accused Christians, all this must incline us to believe in the trustworthiness of the charges. . . If this whole procedure was owing to a plot, its extraordinary ingenuity and precaution become historically remarkable. "

Graetz also claims Capistrano was indirectly responsible for the trial because he inflamed the public opinion against the Jews during his Lenten sermons. Hofer, however, points out that in the 40 sermons, only one referred to the Jews. In it Capistrano urged the citizens of Breslau not to refrain from work on Saturday, lest the Jews interpret this as participation in their Sabbath celebration. Capistrano did not preach sermons on the Jews or to the Jews in Breslau because Breslau, especially in comparison to Vienna and Nueremberg, had an insignificant Jewish population. According to Hofer, “The popular conception of Capistran thundering for forty days against the Jews is the purest fiction.”

What was Capistrano’s position on the Jews? Hofer says his “general attitude towards the Jews stands out clearly in his sermons,” which according to the custom of the day, Jews were forced to attend. In those sermons, he urged Jews to convert to Christianity. “The usual imagination,” Hofer writes, “That on such occasions he aroused popular sentiment against the Jews is not true.” . . . He preached to Jews in “sorrow and disappointment” at their failure to respond to Christ’s call for conversion. He did not treat them with contempt. Like all medievals, Capistrano would have found the notion of racial hatred incomprehensible. . . One the Jew accepted baptism, there was no difference between him and a Christian.

Capistrano left Breslau after the trial and went to Poland, which had a significant jewish population and was growing steadily, and whose privileges, especially usury and tax farming would cause Poland serious problems in the coming centuries. . . According to Graetz’s account, Capistrano “threatened [King Casimer] with the punishments of hell and prophesized a bad outcome in the war against the Prussian Knights if he didn’t revoke the favorable privileges of the Jews and hand the Hussite heretics over to the bloodthirsty clergy.”

After we peel away the invective, Graetz admits the Jews had been granted privileges by the princes across central Europa. Unlike Capistrano, Graetz undoubtedly considered this good, but that is no indictment of Capistrano. . . As Graetz well knew, Jews were granted privileges not out of humanitarian concerns, they were granted privileges because they granted financial concessions to the prince, specifically loans at lower interest rates. To make money available to the prince on favorable terms, Jews were granted the privilege of lending to the burgher and peasant at usurious rates. Once Jews got the prince in his debt, they could demand other concessions too. . . Capistrano felt that the Jews, because of their rejection of Christ, and not because of their race, were a constant danger to any Christian society. His thought paralleled the thinking of popes expressed in “Sicut iudeis non.” Capistrano felt that the Jew could be tolerated but not privileged. . . Usury is one of the most debilitating forms of dependence therefore, princes should not allow Jews the privilege of taking usury. According to Hofer:

“To prevent commercial and social contacts by enforcement of the laws concerning Jews, and to abrogate all privilege that stood against this plan, was the fundamental ideal of Capistrano’s policy. How far did he succeed? That he deeply injured Jewish interests in many lands is the assertion of Jewish historians. Detailed proof of that assertion is lacking. In Italy he did succeed in having edicts issued to abrogate Jewish privileges.”

To stigmatize Capistrano as a Jew-hater because he insisted laws be enforced is a deliberate misrepresentation of the social facts of the era. Jewish involvement in usury caused problems – not the least of all for the Jews – throughout the Middle ages. “The question of Jewish privileges cannot be regarded as a war of medieval intolerance against the approaching dawn of a noble humanitarianism.”

• E. Michael Jones, 'The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit"

 

[Kaninchen]

• E. Michael Jones, 'The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit"

E. Michael Jones, well, that says it all.

 

[Shin]

E. Michael Jones, well, that says it all.

Bit better than a ‘historian’ quoted by the Jewish Encyclopedia who takes such a personal view of history, that he calls people he dislikes “Jew slaughterer and a cannibal.”

 

[Kaninchen]

Bit better than a ‘historian’ quoted by the Jewish Encyclopedia who takes such a personal view of history, that he calls people he dislikes “Jew slaughterer and a cannibal.”

Which ‘historian’ was that then?

 

[Shin]

Which ‘historian’ was that then?

You’d have to actually read the quoted excerpts to find that out I am thinking!

 

[Kaninchen]

You’d have to actually read the quoted excerpts to find that out I am thinking!

Bit like asking me to read the ‘Protocols’ in order to argue against a passage.

 

[Shin]

Bit like asking me to read the ‘Protocols’ in order to argue against a passage.

Some *might *say that is not unlike reading the Jewish Encyclopedia on Christianity.

 

[Kaninchen]

Some *might *say that is not unlike reading the Jewish Encyclopedia on Christianity.

Particularly readers of Mr Jones, I’m sure but that would be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Anyway, since the Encyclopedia is online, people can check for themselves.

 

[Petergee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petergee View Post
Unlike any Catholic authority, Luther not only preached anti-Judaism but also antisemitism. Luther actually urged his followers to kill Jews, just because they were Jews. The link between Luther and Hitler is broad and strong.
]If you have evidence that Luther’s late-in-life rant against the Jews was race-related, anymore than Eck’s or others of that era, please link it. In addition, what link there may be is Hitler’s doing, as he was willing to use any tool to gain power.

None of the anti-jewish sentiments from any Christian of that time is defensible. No more defensible is for one side to target members of the other for polemical purpose of tearing down an entire communion. That was the reason for my initial post here. It wasn’t clear to me if that was where the OP was going. Seems it wasn’t his intent.

Jon

You seem to have misunderstood me. My point is that Luther, not just in a single “rant late in life” but in numerous and obviously well premeditated wriitings over a period of decades, urged his fellow Christians to kill Jews just because they were Jews. I am not aware of any Catholic who held any position of authority ever writing such a thing, which goes far beyond anti-Judaism (arguing that doctrines of Judaism are wrong) to anti-semitism (killing people just because they believe the doctrines of Judaism).

 

[Petergee]

The OP is a well-educated, thoughtful individual who is interested in history. He was connecting the veneration of saints to the vicious actions of a few.

The big difference between the Protestants and the Catholics is that, aside from honoring the apostles, Protestants aren’t required to venerate saints or their founders. They aren’t required to pray to them or recite litanies or believe that they intercede or anything else.

Technically Catholics aren’t **required ** to pray to saints or recite litanies or possibly even to believe that they intercede.

No one argues that Luther was a saint, or Wesley, or Calvin, or any of the Reformers. They were flawed individuals who were for the most part brilliant men and charismatic leaders.

Luther became anti-Semitic when he discovered that his reform of Catholicism didn’t convert Jews to Christianity. Lutherans don’t pray to Luther. They honor him as a brave man who split from the corrupt Catholic Church. ditto Wesley, Calvin, etc.

Because Protestants don’t this requirement, they manage to avoid the embarrassment of having to venerate a list of saints who may not have existed; saints about whom very little is known in some cases; saints who were deeply racist and supported horrific policies; some were masochistic or by today’s standards were mentally disturbed.

I personally think that the process of canonization is a big stumbling block to anyone considering the Catholic church who is interested in history, and I am glad that Protestants never bought into it. They admire people for their strong points, but they don’t canonize them.

No Catholic is claiming that protestants think that the founders of protestantism are saints. But as evidence this very comment of yours, they are quite obviously great heroes of the faith to you, whose teachings saved Christianity from supposed “corruption”. You can’t simply shrug off with “well, nobody’s perfect”, such obviously evil writings, expressing an anti-semitism seen nowhere else in the western world until the 20th century.

Catholics belive the saints have been made perfect now in Heaven, not that they were perfect during their lives on earth.

And to turn your argument around in yet another way, if a Catholic saint did something gravely sinful during his life, a Catholic can point out that he’s just one among tens of thousands of canonised saints. But if the founder of your religion did something gravely sinful and urged others to do the same, it’s not so easy to brush off. I know if somebody showed that the Founder of the Catholic Church had ever said or done anything sinful, it would totally destroy my faith.